Essay on The United States and the Suez Crisis of 1956

The role of the Middle East has been very crucial to the United States, especially after WWII. The U.S. had three strategic goals in the Middle East and consistently followed them throughout various events that unfolded in the region. First, with the emergence of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the U.S., policymakers began to recognize the importance of the Middle East as a strategic area in containing Soviet influence. This also coincides with the U.S. becoming increasingly wary of Arab nationalism and the threat it posed to U.S. influence. Secondly, the emergence of the new Israeli state in 1948 further deepened U.S. policy and involvement in the region while also creating friction between the U.S. and Arab states which were

Considering these facts, it makes sense as a viable course of action for the U.S. security concerns in Egypt to position for the British

To start, Carter says outright what his vision for America was: “...but America does want to be the world's peacemaker.” Furthermore, Carter continues with his vision for America’s peace-seeking foreign policy. He does this by talking about SALT, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks: “The purpose of SALT, then as now, is not to gain a unilateral advantage for either nation, but to protect the security of both nations, to reverse the costly and dangerous momentum of the nuclear arms race, to preserve a stable balance of nuclear forces, and to demonstrate to a concerned world that we are determined to help preserve the peace.” By speaking about the importance of the SALT, Carter effectively laid out what his plan was to secure peace amongst nuclear-armed nations. However, at the same time, President Carter made sure to lay out what America wanted to achieve in the immediate short-term regarding foreign policy: “Our firm commitment to Israel's survival and security is rooted in our deepest convictions and in our knowledge of the strategic importance to our own Nation of a stable Middle East.” As written before, it was strategically important to the United States that they maintain the sovereignty of Israel. Specifically, after failing to intervene in China during the uprising of the KMT, it

There are people who suggest that President Eisenhower was “cautious in . . . international affairs.” Assess the validity of this statement in regard to policies toward Korea, Vietnam, the Suez Crisis, Iran, Israel, and the Soviet Union.

BBC Documentary. "The Other Side of Suez." Youtube. Video file, 55:59. July 22, 2012. Accessed May 19, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETOUALw2EIs.

The Suez Crisis was an incident that first commenced on the 29th of October, 1956, in which Israeli military forces entered the Sinai Peninsular and attacked Egyptian positions, driving them back. By the next day, Israeli forces had reached the Suez Canal, after taking a majority of the Sinai Peninsular. (Best, Hanhimaki, Maiolo & Schulze, 2008, p.432). Britain and France then both issued an ultimatum, for both Israeli and Egyptian forces to withdraw from the Suez Canal, citing its safety from the violence of war as extremely important. After Gamal Abder Nasser, Egypt’s President at the time, rejected the ultimatum, on the 30th

Since the US decided to support the Israeli military and make a post-war peace negotiation with Egypt and Israel, known as the Camp David Accords, the Arab members of OPEC imposed an embargo against the United States cutting off their oil supply. In Document C it says, “Because of that war, most of the Middle Eastern oil producers have reduced overall production and cut off their shipments of oil to the United States.” Showing that not everyone agreed with America when it came to supporting Israeli military and that the Middle East has more control over American than we would like. Another reason the OPEC oil embargo happened is because of the Camp David Accords. In Document D it depicts a newspaper with the headline, “Egypt and Israel Sign Formal Treaty, Ending a State of War After 30 Years,” which shows that America wanted to gain allies in the Middle East and not everyone in the Middle East was happy about

To what extent was Jimmy Carter’s motivation in convening the Camp David accords in 1978 his belief that it was his duty to establish peace between Israel and Egypt?

Ronald Reagan is now one of the most controversial presidents of the past fifty years. Although all have their defenders and detractors, Reagan, though not necessarily a polarizing figure, was engaged in some behavior that has caused questions as people examine his decisions. He is probably best known for his ability to communicate his conservative ideals to the public, and had an innate ability to get people to follow him. Some would say though that his strong arm tactics began the alienation of the United States from the rest of the world, and has led to this moment in time in which the US is reviled by many countries. His chief objective seemed to be to stop the Cold War and end communism as it had stood for the better seven decades, and he did accomplish his task. However, he lacked the delicate diplomatic touch that many wished he would have used. But, he was strong in his convictions ad was not afraid to voice them to any country or individual leader he believed needed to be told how to act properly. This paper looks at the situation with Libya in 1986, examines Reagan's diplomatic doctrine as it applies to this situation, and then determines the immediate and eventual impact of Reagan-led US actions.

In the article, “The Eisenhower Doctrine, 1957”, it states, “Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a country could request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.” This line portrays the purpose of the Eisenhower Doctrine. It explains how this doctrine allowed other countries, if at risk or put in danger by another area, would be allowed to asked for American assistance, whether it be economy or military assistance. In addition, it had “singled out the Soviet threat”, as mentioned in the same article. In other words, this policy was created in response to groups such as the Soviet Union and their goal of expanding communistic methods, also known as the Soviet Threat. The Eisenhower Doctrine was influenced through events such as the Suez Crisis of 1956. In the Suez Crisis of 1956, a larger tension had broken between Egypt and British and French leaders after Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, had forced British troops to leave and give the Suez Canal into Nassar’s command. Due to this, Eisenhower, who was against the spread of communism, had allowed for U.S. military troops to be sent over so that communism wouldn’t be used, which relates back to the Eisenhower Doctrine and its purpose. Later on, the Eisenhower Doctrine was used and applied to the Lebanon Crisis 1958. This crisis also relates back to communism and the Soviet Union/Threat. The Lebanon Crisis of 1958 was a Lebanese political crisis caused by political and religious tensions between Lebanon and Egypt, and had included U.S. military intervention. The citizens of Lebanon and other leaders, such as Nassar, had questioned their President, Chamille Chamoun, for continuing to have ties with the West, leading to high amounts of tensions between Chamoun and his citizens. Due to the numerous amounts of conflicts arising and the risk of being

Not only was the Ottawa process a great exemplar of political diplomacy, but so was the Suez Crisis. The Suez Crisis was created by tensions between the partnership of Great Britain and France, the United States, and the passive threat of the Soviet Union, as the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nassar took control of the canal, a major route for Britain’s oil transportation (Tattrie). Tensions were rough already due to the Cold War, and Canada held an important mediation role to prevent a potential third world war.

When it comes to international conflicts, countries choose a side to fight with, creating alliances between nations. A variety of factors such as the advantages they will be able to receive from each other are always put into consideration. The 1956 Suez Crisis was fought over the control of the Suez Canal, and brought together the alliance of three influential and dominant countries; Britain, France, and Israel (Pearce 215). These nations hoped to gain numerous benefits such as western domination, being able to remove Nasser, Egypt’s president from power, a stronger military force, security, and control over the Suez Canal for their country by being allies during the Suez Crisis.

The Suez Crisis of 1956 was a military and political confrontation in Egypt that involved France, Britain, and Israel. This began when Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s president at the time, nationalized the Suez Canal, which was previously controlled by the French and British. Nasser took control of the canal after the United States and Britain withdrew their funds to help Nasser build the Aswan High Dam. The Americans and the British decided not to finance the Dam after inquiring knowledge of Egypt’s military and political ties to the Soviet Union. Once the canal was seized, the British and French feared that Nasser would stop shipping petroleum to them- which would have been detrimental to their economies.

With these actions taken by the Egyptian President the Israelis were placed in a spot where a decision would have to be made. Now that the Egyptian forces were deployed along their border and the Straits of Tiran closed the Israelis had to decide if they would attack or seek assistance from the international community. The Government of Israel viewed the closing of the straits as an aggressive act, but the government tried to solve the situation through political channels. The government of Israel sought out Britain and France that promised freedom of shipping, but those nations broke their commitment. The President of the United States offered a plan that would sever the blockade using an

The Suez war began in 1956 when the President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Due to the canal’s great importance to the British and they colluded with Israel and France to regain control of the canal. The Suez Canal was especially important to the British because it connected the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea. (Milner) This strategic location allowed them to trade and move across the world giving them control of their colonies. However, on July 26, 1956 President Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal due to his anger at the British for withdrawing their loan offer to Egypt. (Milner) Consequently, the nationalization of the canal was a strategic move to lessen the British’s economic and political control of Egypt, which had lasted since 1882. Many Egyptians were unhappy with British’s occupation of their country so Nasser’s policies were popular in the Middle East. This was because the “expression of national